Tuesday, June 30, 2015

'I wish people would be more understanding': Mother of autistic boy who received hate-filled letter from angry neighbor telling her to 'euthanize' her son issues touching response

Karla Begley, 44, was interviewed by a blog about special needs children

On August 16, Max Begley's grandmother got a vile letter complaining about the noise the 13-year-old autistic boy was making

The self-described 'pissed off mother' who penned the letter suggested that Max be euthanized

A Toronto mother who had received a shocking anonymous letter last week urging her to have her 13-year-old autistic son euthanized has issued a forceful response, highlighting the importance of tolerance.

Karla Begley and her family were left reeling after receiving a disturbing, hate-filled missive from a neighbor in Newcastle, Canada, informing her that the noise her special needs son, Max, was making while playing outside terrified her 'normal' children.

On Wednesday, Miss Begley, whose 15-year-old son, Jack, is also on the autistic spectrum, and she herself is wheelchair-bound due to multiple sclerosis, gave an interview to a blog about special needs children called Love That Max to address the controversy in a constructive way.

Eloquent answer: Karla Begley, pictured here with her son Max in 2010, took to a blog about special needs children to deliver a response to a vile letter a neighbor had sent her complaining about the boy's sounds

Words of wisdom: Mrs Begley (left) urged people to be more understanding towards special needs children like her son (right), whom she called a blessing

‘I will not stoop to an insulting level,’ she said. ‘What I have to say is about tolerance, acceptance and respect for kids with special needs.’

Begley addressed the noise complaints cited in the callous letter she had received, saying that all children make noise, not just ones with special needs. In the case of her son, the sounds he emits is the only way he can express himself.

‘If Max's sounds bother someone, I'd hope that person would let us know in a respectful way,’ Begley said. ‘Give us a chance to handle it instead of being cowardly about it.’

The 44-year-old mother went on to say that she prefers when people openly address her son’s disability, like kids in the neighborhood who come up to her and ask why Max talks ‘funny.’

‘The parents are embarrassed. But if the mom isn't going to talk properly to a child, or teach him that kids with autism are not contagious, I will!’ she told the blog. ‘It's important to help kids understand and not be fearful from a young age.

‘I'll tell children, "He has autism and he has trouble with speech, but you can say 'hi' to him." And then I'll have Max say 'hi' back and it's OK. I'd rather kids ask than grow up to be the sort of people who write nasty letters about autism!’

The mother further explained that just because her son cannot express himself in words like most people, or take part in activities like other children his age, he still understands everything and enjoys life.

Nothing good to say: An anonymous neighborhood mother wrote this letter to the grandmother of a severely autistic teen in Newcastle, Canada

Sadness and anger: Max's mother Karla Begley was in tears as she read the hateful letter directed at her son

‘People with special needs are people first. They have every right others do,’ she argued. ‘Instead of glares, I wish people would give smiles. Instead of anger toward parents, I wish people would be more understanding.

In the disgusting missive the Begleys had received, the cowardly author called Max a useless burden to his family. But his mother has insisted that in fact her son has been a blessing to her.

‘I think I'm lucky: How many mothers still have their 13-year-old son wanting to sit on the couch, have mommy time and cuddles, and not be afraid to show love and affection?’ Karla Begley said.

The mother added that while her son’s future is uncertain due to his disability, she and the rest of the family are unfazed by the possibility that Max may never have a wife or a job.

‘Everyone has a place in the world,’ she said in her eloquent response. ‘Some people are meant to hold big jobs. Some people make you happy and smile.’

During the summer, 13-year-old Max spends his mornings with his grandmother Brenda Millson in Newcastle.

She says she was shaking after receiving a letter August 16 from an anonymous neighbor complaining that the noise Max makes outside is 'DREADFUL!' and that it 'scares the hell out of my normal children!'Mrs Millson shared the whole letter with CityNewsToronto.

The woman's anonymous letter went beyond the offensive noise complaint into even more repugnant territory, writing that Max is a 'hindrance'.

'Who the hell is going to care for him? No employer will ever hire him, no normal girl is going to marry/love him and you are not going to live forever!'

Then she recommended something truly atrocious.

'Personally, they should take whatever non retarded body parts he possesses and donate it to science. What the hell else good is he to anyone!'

'Do the right thing and move or euthanize him! Either way, we are ALL better off.'

'Who says that about a child?' Max's mother Karla Begley asked City News.

She started to cry as she explained that her secondary progressive multiple sclerosis keeps her from walking and running with her son.

13-year-old Max was diagnosed with severe autism when he was two and he spends his summer mornings at his grandmother's house, usually playing in the backyard

On his side: The neighborhood came out in support of Max after hearing about the abhorrent letter

Since learning about the letter, neighbors of Max's grandmother have come out in a public display of support for the boy in an attempt to out the letter's author.

Max's father is worried that the letter might lead to violence against his son.

'A person that's that crazy or demented who would fabricate something like that...it leads me to believe that they're very dangerous,' Jim Begley said, 'and right now I'm scared for my son's safety.

If the writer is identified, Max's family plans to press charges.

**********************************************************

An interview with the mother:

Kerry Magro: Hi Karla. We appreciate your time today to help answer a few questions. So Karla, can you tell us a little about your son?

Karla Begley:Oh Max. Well, he’s 13, has autism and loves life. He’s my little angel. He’s very smart. We always kind of joke around. Our oldest son Jackson, he’s 15 and he has high functioning autism. Max has a lot more common sense about the world but loves to have fun. He can be so silly at times and he loves physical activity. He’s just always moving around; it’s hard to keep up with him at times.

KM: Can you tell us a bit more about what happened?

KB: About two-and a-half weeks ago, Max was at my Mom’s house about two towns over from where we live. My mom was checking her mail and found the letter and was completely disgusted by what she saw.

She was completely mortified and disgusted by the wording of the letter. She didn’t like the wording especially the term “euthanize”. Max I would say spends about 20 percent of his time at my mother’s house and this was a complete and total shock.

KM: Do you have any idea who wrote the letter?

KB:We don’t but the police are looking into it, and taking my mom’s fingerprints to see if they can see any other prints on the letter. A detective was just at our house the other day. From what they said, it seems to me that they are on the right track. One thing they are doing is sending forms to everyone in the neighborhood to get more information from them if they know of anything.

the Questionnaire distributed

KM: What was your immediate reaction to the letter?

KB: One thing many people don’t talk about is that the incident didn’t happen at my house. Although it happened at my mother’s house it was targeted at Max because he’s always the one there and going around the neighborhood. So I finally found out about it that day from my husband. He said that there was a nasty letter written about Max. The neighbors in my mom’s neighborhood got a hold of it and started posting it.

My immediate reaction was that it made me sick, sick to my stomach. I didn’t know what to think about what would happen next until it got posted online. Even though I’m disgusted about it, there’s been so much support from everyone both locally and nationally. It’s made things good from getting it out there but also a little overwhelming with all the attention our family has been receiving.

KM: What was the reaction from your neighbors?

KB: My Mom’s neighbors have been up in arms and proactive about the entire situation. They have stood behind Max and what’s going on.

My neighbors have also been really good about it. We moved to our neighborhood in Oshawa, Canada in March 2000 and Max was born in April 2000 so he’s spent his entire life here. Our community has been very warm towards him and all of his transitioning to this point. I can remember times when Max would throw clothes and CDs into other people’s yards but all the neighbors would always collect them and bring them back. And they were very understanding.

KM: Has life changed for you since your mother received the letter?

KB:My life hasn’t that much but Max’s absolutely has. People have been so warm to Max, saying hi to him when he’s out. For me, I haven’t had that much time to get out but friends have been visiting and sending their best wishes.

KM: What do you think is the most importation lesson to be learned?

KB:It’s all about acceptance. There are a lot of us (families affected by autism) out there in the world. People stare and give off rude expressions. I just think it’s important to treat people as people. There’s always going to be that one person that is going to be ignorant but hopefully they can change because we aren’t going anywhere. Our voices are just getting louder and louder.

KM: If there was one message you could share with our community about the incident what would it be?

KB:We have to keep pushing out there and have a thick skin towards our community. We’ve fought for everything we’ve done for Max. We won’t give up and we hope these types of people get quieter as we get louder and spread acceptance and awareness. Life is short. Anything can happen. Be careful how you treat people because it can happen to you. Max is a blessing. Don’t get me wrong but ignorant people need a dose of reality. They need a day in our shoes.

KM: How is your son doing now?

KB:Well, my son doesn’t know about the letter but he’s been more vibrant and more sure of himself because people have been coming up to him and saying hi. His positivity has skyrocketed. He’s actually smiling at me right now.

KM: Karla, thank you so much for speaking with us! We send our support and stand with you on this and look forward to speaking with you again soon!

Monday, June 29, 2015

LINDEN - Cumberland County sheriff's detectives are looking for three men involved in a deadly home invasion robbery Tuesday morning in Linden.Roderick Dean Scott, 28, was shot and killed during the robbery at a home on the 8900 block of Ramsey Street, said sheriff's Capt. Bobby Reyes.The area is on U.S. 401, about a half-mile north of Coats Road, Reyes said.The Sheriff's Office said three men wearing hooded sweatshirts and masks entered the residence about 3 a.m.and held Scott and his girlfriend at gunpoint.Scott was shot and his girlfriend's hands were tied, the Sheriff's Office said in a release.Scott died at the scene.The three robbers, who have not been identified, left the area.Around 11 a.m., crime scene investigators were still at the scene of the house. They were in the crawl space and in the yard using a metal detector, possibly looking for shells.Anyone with information is asked to call the Sheriff's Office at 323-1500 or Crimestoppers at 483-TIPS (8477).

Thus we come, in our series of articles, to the point where all analysts and readers interested in analysis come, eventually:

To your opinion on human nature, itself.

There are two basic viewpoints on human nature (as well as a myriad of off-shoots) that each of us comes to where we embrace one or the other.

The decision you make impacts:

Analysis, specifically in "The Expected Versus The Unexpected", as well as in profiling.

The decision you make also impacts:

How you raise your children.
How you treat your spouse.
How you view yourself.
How you cast your vote.
How you conduct yourself at a restaurant.

In other words, whether or not you have conscious awareness of your view or not, it impacts how you think, how you see the world, how you behave, and how you interpret the behavior of others.

Both systems teach: The child is innocent of wrong doing. Yet one says the child carries a nature to naturally do wrong, while the other carries a nature to naturally do right.

This is nature.

Nurturing is the development and culturing of the child's nature.

One believes the child's natural tendency is to do wrong, while the other believes the child's natural tendency is to do good.

One believes the child is naturally narcissistic and must be taught to share;

The other believes the child is born neutral, or good, and narcissism is the result of nurture.

They are very different. What you believe will impact how you think and live.

For example: a patrol officer can become not only acutely cynical from dealing with deception, by the hour, every shift, for years, but he can also become depressed and even suicidal. This is what makes "snap shots" so terribly unfair. It is also why a patrol officer who has grown cynical can fail at detecting deception as he sees deception everywhere.

Conversely, the view often called "pollyanna" sees "the good in everyone" and can not only fail at analysis, but struggles with justice, itself, and can take upon himself a burden for humanity that he cannot bear for very long. True, the gullible are easier to teach analysis, but this viewpoint will likely undergo a great change over time, as analysis yields profiles of the subjects, themselves.

Religion plays a very powerful role in this as people will respond in a religious manner to whichever they ascribe to.

Is man born basically good, but learns evil through circumstance?

Or,

Is man born basically evil (unstable) and must be taught good, through lessons in life, and the evil thus be restricted by society?

Each one of us has one view point or the other, even if we do not speak of it, or even recognize it. For me, in interviewing, it is very easy to discern. I love interviewing and have, professionally, conducted more than 6,000 interviews, including many child interviews. Privately, however, I have done many more, as I "interview" people continually, on the phone, in the stores, out in the public, as I am always interested in learning about human nature.

So, which is it?

Are we basically good people, who due to poor choices, do bad things?

Or, are we basically bad, or "unstable" people, who must be taught not to do harm to others?

Although the "in between" crowd is...well, crowded, I will stick to one or the other, knowing the sub-sets may be argued by others.

What follows is an opportunity for you to understand those you may disagree with in life, as I will begin with the basic camp that says that man is born in instability, that is, not good, and must be both taught, and restrained, so that good may come, and then I will cover the opposite, which is the populous viewpoint today: man is born good, and through poor choices and environmental conditions, learns to do bad things.

These two view points clashed in the "penitentiary" theory where prison was to cause the offender to change. This is just one tiny outworking of the belief.

You have read here many times; What one believes, one does. Therefore, if you believe that "jihad" is your duty, you may not carry it out directly, but you will support it in others. (see recent polling in Europe on this).

If you believe in socialism, where mankind is responsible for mankind, you will want laws passed to see that this is carried out.

If you believe in freedom of speech, you will want it exercised, even when you cringe hearing that which you disagree with.

The Nazis believed that Jews betrayed them in the Treaty of Versailles, so they marginalized them, legally, through legislation, made them pariahs in the nation, which then opened the door to fines, imprisonment, and eventually, annihilation.

What we believe (the ideology), we act upon, or act "out" in society. This is how the world works. If you believe that stealing is wrong, you will refrain from stealing, or when you steal, you will have internal conflict, which may lead you to return the stolen items and make restitution.

What one believes, one will live.
What a nation believes, a nation will live.

When you read, or even on your own, conduct analysis, you are gaining opinions, whether you are cognizant of it or not, into human nature, and the opinions are piling up on you, formulating an overall impression of mankind.

The "Protestant Work Ethic" was a title given to early America in which "rugged individualism" was seen. Why was it called, specifically, the "Protestant Work Ethic"?

This was because the Protestant Reformation taught that any work a man does that to provide for himself and his family, that is lawful, is, itself, "holy", or consecrated before God. Roman Catholicism had "holy orders", or a call into ministerial life that was called "holy."

The reformation taught that sweeping a dusty floor, done properly, was pleasing to God, and was, therefore, "holy."

This belief seeped into Europe and when freedom of religion was limited, many came to America, and with them, came this work ethic. The "Protestant Work Ethic" was a driving force behind America's early success and self reliance. Without the artificial caste system of Europe, immigrants came to America with the idea that they could "be anyone I wanted to be" via opportunity due to hard work. This is why the welfare system was considered something embarrassing or even shameful. One did not need to be "Protestant" to have the "Protestant Work Ethic", as it was praised throughout America, including Roman Catholics, and America was seen as "exceptional." (Jewish mentality already embraced hard work as "holy"). This work ethic also said that if one refused to work, he was not to be fed. Charities spread across the land to help people, but it was always with the end in mind: gaining independence from others through "Yankee ingenuity" and hard work.

If one refused to work, he was not fed. I bet you have an opinion about this very thing. Whether you realize it or not, your opinion on this has a basis for it. This is where we will be examining so that you can "know yourself" better, so that you can "know others" better, and discern truth and deception in analysis.

This belief system came from what people believed about human nature.

Let's consider the two basic opposing view points on whether or not children are born basically good, or basically bad, and trace where these view points came from, what actions and activities resulted from them, and how they impact analysis.

I. The Basic ViewPoints of Humanity

II. How These View Points Reveal Themselves in Society

III. How These View Points Impact Analysis and Profiling

Since everyone of us has a personal, internal, subjective dictionary, it is best to begin with definitions.

"Man" is mankind, which includes "wo/man", or "she which came from man. We will examine why this was used. If "man" is gender specific, the context should indicate this.

"Sexism" must be defined, just as "racism" must be defined.

For the purpose of our study, "sexism" will be the unlawful or illicit discrimination based upon gender.

"Racism" is the hatred of a person or race of people, personally. It is irrational, based upon skin pigmentation.

We do we need these definitions?

Because the modern, fluid definition is continually changing. This is a form of deception and denies truth. If someone is a male, it is because they possess male sexual genitalia. If someone is black, it s because of racial identity. If subjectivity is permitted, we cannot conclude, for example, that one is a female, unless we first ask, and then hope he or she does not change his or her mind.

Therefore, if analysis shows that the author of an anonymous note is a "female", this is, literally, a "sexist" remark, that is, a discernment or discrimination based upon gender. If the analysis says, "the author is a white male", this is "racism" in the modern sense of the word.

For us, a female is defined as one born with female genitalia. A male is one born with male genitalia. An overweight person is one who is, medically, carrying more weight than it healthy for his or her frame.

Should one look in the mirror, as being very underweight, and "see" dangerously overweight, we will side with science in our definitions.

We will view both "sexism" and "racism" as "bad", or illicit, immoral, or wrong. In short, for people of faith, racism, for example, is a "sin" or "transgression" of the law they follow.

I recently read that feeding children peanut butter and jelly sandwiches in school is "racist." This came from someone who actually educates children. The educator explained her position. The child comes from Africa and is more "comfortable" with goat sandwich but is "forced" to have the "white people's lunch." The child is being "discriminated against" by "white oppressive teachers" (she is white, or at least, she identifies as white), who operate in a white, oppressive system. This is not Malcolm X or Nation of Islam, or even Al Sharpton.

This is a woman to whom your children are entrusted.

I wondered what would happen to this educator if she had moved to Kenya with her children, and demanded the Kenyan school system stop serving the "racist" goat sandwich and give her children, who are "human, too", peanut butter and jelly. I do not think she would get very far, or even her story in the news papers.
If you wish to learn about analysis, specifically profiling and anonymous letter work (including non-threatening statements), you will have to either put aside 'political correctness', or you cannot do this work.

It is this simple.

If you hate rap music's lyrics denigrating women, this will mean that you have a distaste for certain words used to describe actual females, in popular culture. It will not make you a racist.

If you believe that strength means yielding to those who are weaker, you will not be a "sexist."

A black store owner in Baltimore has reopened.

The family suffered loss during the riot and for years, has had a white worker that is like family to them, employed at the front desk.

Protesters told the owners that this is why their store was targeted, and should they continue to employ the white person, they will be, in the very least, boycotted and they will be put out of business.

If they fire the white person, they are now breaking the law, and can lose their business through law suit.

If they do not hire her, they are going to be boycotted, threatened, and will, much sooner than later, file for bankruptcy.

What should they do?
How you view this situation comes from how you view human nature.

You may not see it this way, but you will, over time.

How you analyze an anonymous author stems from what you think of human nature. If you believe that there are certain phrases more suited to men than women, you will have an opinion on who wrote it. If you are not permitted, whether it be through law, or through social coercion, to have an opinion on whether the words sound more like a male than a female, you can go no further, but must remain silent.

When the black family in Lindenhurst received the anonymous threatening letter telling them to move out of Lindenhurst, the analysis of the letter showed that it was written from, not a white racist threatening harm should they not move, but from a black female who was intimately familiar with the family, and had an empathy with the troublesome duties associated with moving, itself.

The analysis showed that the person who received the letter wrote the letter, herself. Go Fund Me plans could not be realized once the deception was uncovered.

Yet, what if it had been true?

What if a black family was living in terror, short on money, forced to move not simply out of the town, but out of their own home?

Many years ago when I was a boy, my aunt told me how she and her family suffered terror in discrimination while living in Brooklyn, with threats and some acts (she did not share details with her young nephew, but I saw the fear in her face) of terror that forced her to move from her home in Brooklyn, due to her race.

She had fought back, resisting the "white flight" that was taking place, especially since she was a teacher who loved her students, both black and white. and had a solid rapport with their parents. It was not just her "beloved Brooklyn", with all of its history, but, she said, they had overcome the "Irish need not apply" prejudices, had worked hard, and had gained acceptance into a community that she did not want to give up.
Not only was she losing her community, her roots and her home, but her husband now had to have a lengthy commute from eastern Long Island into New York City. She could (and did) get a job teaching in Suffolk County, but my uncle would now have to commute.

They had many years of fond memories of Brooklyn and told warm stories of the Brooklyn Dodgers and what life they loved was like there, yet, were forced, by racism, to leave their home.

Do you have an opinion of this?

I think that you do, and what I am looking for is the reasoning behind your opinion, not for me to know, but for you to know, so that you may:

Know not only what you think, but why you think it, so that you may:

Learn why an anonymous author chooses the words he or she chooses.

Racism is the illogical hatred of a person or persons, due to race.

Sexism is the illogical hatred of a person or persons, due to gender.

Discrimination is to make a decision. Discrimination can be righteous and moral, or it can be illicit and illegal as well as immoral. There is good discrimination (keeping your hand from touching fire) and their can be bad discrimination (hating all white people because of country music), as we define "discrimination" similar to "discernment" (it is, in a sense, discernment in action).

A few more:

"Homophobia" is the irrational fear of homosexuality.

This means that a person has a fear of homosexuals that has no basis in reality, no different than a dangerously thin person looking in the mirror and insisting that she must stop eating food due to obesity.

If someone believes that homosexuality is immoral, it does not mean that they have an irrational fear. If someone believes that marriage is between a man and a woman, it does not mean that they have irrational fear of homosexuals.

"Christophobia" is the irrational fear of Christians or Christianity. If someone believes that Christianity is wrong, or that Christian belief is not something they agree with, it does not mean that they have an irrational fear of Christ. If someone touches the water font at a Roman Catholic Church and yells, "it burns, it burns!", they may have an irrational fear of religion.

"Islamophobia" is the irrational fear of Islam. I very much fear anyone who believes that I should be put to death if I do not convert. I am even more afraid of the belief that women hold a status that should a land be conquered the women may be raped as reward. My fear goes even deeper when this is coupled with the teaching that Mohammad was the "perfect" man, knowing that he was a pedophile.

When the UK police failed to warn the public and the school of the Islamic pedophiles and rapists targeting the local children, my fear turned to anger. Why were the police silent?

They were afraid of being called "Islamophobes" and "racists" (though no one race was implicated), and this fear caused their silence, which led to 9-15 year old females being raped, with lives ruined forever.

This is the de fact imposition of Sharia Law through political correctness.

The "phobia" is the defense to keep contrary views silent.

Do you see how ideas have consequences?

1. The UK believed that "diversity" was best for society, regardless of whether the diverse cultures were positive or negative, only that they were 'diverse' meant "good."
2. The culture that came in believes that the perfect example of man came from a pedophile who taught that "foreign" women (the host country) were legitimate targets, which included the females who were not yet "women" but "children."
3. To warn the parents (and in this case, many of the girls targeted were in foster or group homes) would be "wrong" because of "Islamophobia", that is, the irrational fear of Islam.
4. The silence led to a very large number of female lives destroyed.

Therefore, our definitions must be understood before we can go further. We must understand that discrimination is neither good, nor bad, of itself, but it is the basis and criteria of the discrimination that makes it good or bad, positive or negative, good or evil.

"Sin" is "transgression" or "wrong doing." What is a "sin" to people of faith, may not necessarily be illegal in many countries. Even if "legal" the "sin" (or "transgression") remains wrong to the person's own belief system.

of the person. "Profiling" has shifted in meaning and is often considered "bad" without further thought. This is because of "racial profiling" becoming an "entirely" wrong thing to do. Like most other areas in which politicians are involved, this, too, has reached the point of illogic.

Let us say that 95% of terrorists look like me: kinda short, kinda chubby, kinda ruddy. These short, chubby ruddy males are running into airports and blowing them up...

in Africa.

Therefore, when I am in Zambia, and enter an airport, I am immediately approached by security guards who ask me to "step over here" while they search me for explosives.

I can react in one of several ways.

1. I can say that I have been a victim of racial profiling and in order to be fair, Airport Security must take each and every person that enters this airport, and make them "step over here" for the search, making airline wait time skyrocket to 5 hours.

or

2. I can say, "I understand why you have pulled me aside. Please check me, but let the others go on their way through the normal security checkpoints. Better to delay me, just one person, than to punish them all.

or

3. I can file a suit for a zillion dollars and tell people at Go Fund Me that Zambia is discriminating against short, chubby, ruddy males and in order to save the children, they should donate money and help me raise money for human growth hormone which promises to make me taller.

"Peter, where are those statistics about homosexuality and anonymous threatening letters to be found?"

When I worked with suicidal gay teens, I did not ask, "hey, I heard you may be heterosexual, so I'm thinking that you need to go find some other help here..."

When the Salvation Army feeds people, they do not ask, "So, do you like dudes or the ladies?" before they feed the hungry stomach.
When a black family is under threat, do you want to say, "Uh, I'd like to help you but you know, people might think it racists, so you're on your own..."?

In essence, this is what UK police did.

In essence, this is what the professional victims do, as well, as each Fake Hate has consequences beyond what is known with the stolen money.

Last example:

When reports came from Europe that Jews were literally being round up and gassed to death, many in America, including news paper editors, did not believe it.

They did not believe, true enough, because it sounded so incredible, but there was another reason why it was not believed across the country;

It had been said before.

"The Hun is killing, raping, plundering..." propaganda from "The Great War" (what we call, World War I) mixed truth with deception, and had left many in America (and in England) in disbelief to the reports of genocide of Jews.

When Churchill cabled Stalin that Germany was planning an invasion of the Soviet Union, Stalin dismissed it as the British propaganda machinery at work again.

When Roosevelt orchestrated "Mission to Moscow" by Hollywood, it was not only propaganda to get America to accept Stalin as an ally, (who killed more than Hitler), but it showed the weakness of:

The need to propagandize the public.

The movie opens, literally, with the author of "Mission to Moscow", who was the United States ambassador to the Soviet Union. In his statement to the movie going public in America, he is deceptive.

Can you:

1. Name the man?
2. Identify the deception in the statement?

Statement Analysis gets to the truth and getting there cannot be hindered by political correctness and fatalism which arises from the declaration that "no truth exists."

We cannot do this work while bowing to the god of political correctness. The truth is the truth, no matter how it might make us feel. (Ok, everyone here, "jazz hands"; none of that masculine clapping as it feels unsafe)

This sounds goofy because it is goofy, just as goofy as an educator declaring my favorite boyhood beach sandwich "racist."

Racism is illogic in action. It is also very personal.

The movie: "Gentlemen's Agreement"

"You're an anti Semite! He's an anti-Semite! You all are anti-Semites! Hell, even I am an anti-Semite!"

By the time Gregory Peck was done, the tedium was enough to make anyone anti-anything.

Having defined "racism" and "sexism" as above, along with reclaiming earlier, pre-insanity definitions of other words, we may proceed to get to the point of learning not only where a belief system has come from, but why people act (and speak) as they do, and how we, now knowing these things, can become sharper at analysis and profiling.

Even that which you whole-heartedly disagree with will help you in this work as you can learn, without embracing ideologies from which words and actions flow.

This will only increase your sharpness but it is in the learning of human nature that the greatest success in analysis may come from.

The more you learn about "what makes us tick", the better your success rate in discerning deception will be.

The higher your success rate in detecting deception, the better you will be at profiling.

The better you are at profiling, the better prepared you will be for Anonymous Authorship Identification.

Next up: The first perspective of human nature for the purpose of Statement Analysis.

Sunday, June 28, 2015

Recently, a letter was sent to a black family on Long Island telling them to move out of Lindenhurst to a town where there were other black families. It was reported to Suffolk County Hate Crimes Division and the recipient family had plans for how to gain national attention for what happened.

Analysis of this letter revealed that the author was not a white racist but:

A black female, educated and intelligent, who had a history and empathy for moving, and connected herself to the home, itself. The conclusion suggested itself:

The recipient was the author. You may read the specific profile and analysis HERE.

I was concerned that because the exact identity of the author emerged, aided by the recipient's own writing sample, that readers would take lightly the work, and make error the 'norm' for

A homeowner with inexpensive outdoor lights; perhaps $5 or $10 worth, received an anonymous threatening letter which was targeting, not race, but sexuality, claiming, in context, that police would be called because of Christianity, and the danger of exposing children to homosexuality.

Statement Analysis of the letter did provide a profile.

Principles of Anonymous Letter Work

Anonymous Letters have the linguistic fingerprints on them.

There is a statistical connection between homosexuality and authorship of anonymous threatening letters. This is specifically in the element of "confusion" or difference of opinion regarding a sexual identity.

Anonymous Letters can yield a profile of the author.

Anonymous Letter analysis can identify the author.

The Letter Itself

DAVID

IT IS HARD TO IMAGINE A BIRMINGHAM BOY
LEAVING AND BRINGING BACK A BLACK WIFE

YOU NEED TO MOVE TO CALIFORNIA WHERE THAT
IS SOP

OR GO BACK TO WOODLAND

The envelop shows:

Birmingham, AL postmark.

DAVID

Within the letter itself, we note that it is all in caps, which when typed, does not indicate emphasis. This is because of the "cap lock" key. We note anything that takes more effort as important, even in typing. In the anonymous letter sent to Julie Baker, we note that it had some strange capitalization patterns. Even when typing, this is important. For Baker, this was her standard, as all of her writing on Facebook indicated the same pattern. When she became aware of the analysis, her writing, for the first time, was void of the capitalization pattern, making it significant to the analyst as it showed a need to break the pattern, further confirming that she, herself, was the author.

We also note that this letter does not contain insult, nor does it contain any threat. Racist notes have an expectation of insult and/or threat, as it stems from a specific emotion.

Also note that length is often indicative of emotion. Emotional sentences, for example, are generally longer than shorter sentences.
Shorter sentences are often more logical, void of emotion.
Yet we continue: "staccato" often indicates emotion within the shortness, with repetition indicating anger.

This is why the analyst must always remain open-minded with analysis.

We next note that the letter begins with the name, "DAVID" with all caps not being significant since it is the same throughout. (We would have noted anything that was no longer capitalized, as a "downgrade."

Examples of Downgrade:"I proceeded to instruct Mr. Smith that he needed to compose himself, otherwise I was going to have to take action. Mr. Smith raised his arm as if to attack me and I put mr. smith into a hold while telling him that he needs to stop and cool down. "

You noticed that "Mr. Smith", once he was grabbed by the staff, became "smith", without the capitalization. This was an investigation into an assault at a hospital where abuse was alleged. One of the elements we needed to know was if the staff had grabbed the patient unnecessarily, but also if it was done in anger: that is, what was the staff's attitude towards the patient. The patient alleged abuse but staff denied it. The patient said that staff had hated him and threatened him repeatedly, but staff countered that the patient was so mentally ill that he was not reliable. This was true enough, so we relied upon the staff, himself, to guide us in the investigation.

The staff did that very thing, and did guide us. He knew the patient could not communicate properly but his statement (in full) revealed a great deal of animosity, of which I confronted him with. I asked him if he thought any security video might show us something very different than what he had reported. (there was no video, so I only asked him, "if"). Consistent in his statement was a 'downgrading' at critical points of the statement.

He was found to have abused the patient, lost his job, and faced legal consequence. His statement (several pages in length), showed that once "Mr. Smith" was assaulted, he was "mr. smith" and even "smith", but later, in the statement, after the victim received medical care, he was "John" and "Mr. Smith" in attempts to "make friends"; that is, to appear in a positive light.

Another example is, agains, from "Fake Hate" Julie Baker. In the "hate" note, the word "Christian" was capitalized, as was "Children", given additional emphasis (unnecessary), which revealed that it was suspect as being concerned about religion or children. This was also the pattern for Baker.

The word "Christian" is appropriately capitalized, but not "Children." "Children" was given capitalization for additional emphasis, something that helped reveal the scam.

When she responded to the claim that she wrote it, she changed her pattern to no longer capitalize, so "Children" became the appropriate "children", but "Christian" was given the downgrade to the inappropriate "christian", revealing her animosity towards Christianity. This is what a "downgrade" looks like and it is why even one letter can make a difference.

DAVID is first name only and it is an indication that the author is familiar with Mr. David Shaw, in such a way, as to use his first name only.

DAVID has bold print, which means that effort was taken (sensitive) and the need to emphasize noted. That it is not the norm, that is, straight capitalization, this use of bold type may affirm the personal connection between the author and the recipient.

It is important to learn what Mr. Shaw is normally referred to as. Is he "David"? "Dave"?

1. The author knows the recipient, increasing the odds that the recipient knows the author. 2 The letter is without animosity or threat.
We continue....

IT IS HARD TO IMAGINE

Here, we ask ourselves:

Who would say this?

Who uses this phrase more, men or women?

(We continue to assert the scientific findings that the biological difference between a male and a female are discernible. Should this change, we will let readers know that our analysis will be changing, too. Should someone receive a serious threat letter, to avoid sexism, we will refrain from asking these questions, therefore, not allow police to know if they should be searching for a man or a woman, instead, focusing upon testosterone levels).

Is this something a black person might say, more than a white expression? (When this is condemned as racist hate speech, we will let readership know. When someone receives a threatening letter, and police wish to know if they should be looking for a white perpetrator, we will refrain from letting them know).

Enough politically correct ranting.

Is it something a man might say, or a woman?
Is it something a white person would say? Or, would a non-white (including Hispanic/Asian) might say?

Is it regional?

Is it education level orientated?

The bottom line is: We are attempting to learn who wrote this and cannot be held back by nonsense, especially when a threat is included. Since no threat is included, we have already noted this in point #2 above.

Begin first with Gender:

Who uses this phrase? "It's hard to imagine"?

It is a commonly used phrase and one that does not assert impossibility and in this case, there are lots of bi racial couples, so, like so many anonymous letters, the author's assertion may be the very opposite of what is stated.

"This is from the community of Lindenhurst" was a strong indication that, no, it was not coming from a community, but a single author.

"It is hard to imagine" tells us that the author is actually quite familiar with bi-racial couples.

3. The author is likely to be familiar with bi-racial couples, whether married or dating.
Therefore, though not finished with this phrase yet, we have three points of which to consider. As we consider these three points, we seek to learn if the rest of the letter will:

Social workers who investigate child abuse allegations are amongst the most talented, and the most negatively impacted professionals in the world. Two solid years of incessant child and parent interviewing can make them razor sharp. Secondary trauma leads many of them to poor health, substance abuse, and cynicism, unless they take particular care of themselves.

Police officers specifically trained and assigned to child abuse cases, including children interviewing, also can become razor sharp in their skills, but are also prone to the secondary trauma of seeing some of the most horrific things done to the most vulnerable. Seeing a dead body is worse when the body is so very tiny. They too, suffer from many of the maladies that impact the licensed social worker and health care professional who works in the child abuse field.

Not only do they deal with the most vulnerable of citizens, but they often are targeted by the public for "taking babies for profit" and other lies, while being bound by confidentiality laws to not embarrass the abusive parent, or stigmatize the child.

I saw a social worker once scream while listening to a news report in which a mother was, on live television, blasting the professional for "outright lying" and "making money off taking kids away", as she was starting a protest. What was not allowed to be said was the horrific things this mother had done to her own child.

The secondary trauma can be intense and the professional must take care of himself or herself, not simply in de-briefing and exercise, but in nutrition, sleep, and quality of "outside" life. It is a tough call.

What can help tremendously is getting to the truth, and having tools of which are so sharp, that they end up saving time, and give the satisfaction of not only saving a child from further abuse, but the same tools will clear the falsely accused in cases where parents are fighting over a child because of money, and will lie, and destroy, for a dollar.

I once had a case in which a neighbor accused her male neighbor of molesting her 13 year old daughter. The 13 year old was interviewed as was the mother.

A local judge once said that she believed, as a judge, that it was impossible for a child to make up accusations of abuse. As a judge, she believed the child each and every time. There was nothing I could say to talk her out of it. (Her language revealed her own history of childhood sexual abuse). I can only use my imagination to know the damage she inflicted in life because of her lack of discernment.

The 13 year old entered into her mother's language. This is more than "parroting", but actually was so bonded with her mother, that she could finish her mother's sentences.

I learned that the accused, who now faced serious jail time and an utter loss of reputation, but a destruction that would be in total for his life.

I also learned that he loaned his female neighbor money to pay her rent.

Statement Analysis cleared the falsely accused and the young girl eventually confessed what I had already known: mother had rehearsed the allegations repeatedly with her daughter.

If a child protective social worker or designated law enforcement official (both trained in child interviewing) are investigating an allegation of child abuse against a parent or parents, there are two words that they must avoid at all costs.

In some Dept. of Health and Human Services, the licensed social workers do not "investigate" child abuse allegations, but "assess" them. This is a 'softer', more 'politically correct' word designed to make the alleged abuser feel more at ease.

It also minimizes serious allegations and is a result of "pendulum" swings where our society has drifted from holding people responsible ("Sir, how do you plan on providing for the baby?") to avoiding anything that might hurt the feelings of the parent.

Eventually, many States told child protective workers not to ask a parent how he or she intended to provide for the child, as this might hurt a parent's feelings. More than a few times, I asked the question to hear a surprised response: "Tanif!", while the young man turns from me, surprised that I asked him, back to his video game.

Statement Analysis teaches that the truth comes from the Free Editing Process.

This is the legally sound, rights orientated manner in which a parent may freely choose his or her own words.

Remember the speed of transmission serves our purposes.

The average parent has an internal vocabulary of 25,000 words. When you ask, "What happened to the baby?", the parent freely goes into this dictionary, and decides what to tell you, which words to use, which tenses to employ, where to place each word next to another, to make sense, and this takes place in less than a micro-second of time.

This is why they are trained to ask, "What happened?" and "What happened, next?" so that the questions will not limit the Free Editing Process in which the subject (parent) chooses his or her own words freely, not influenced by your words.

What are the two words an investigator must never use when interviewing parents suspected of child abuse?
In Statement Analysis, we say:

Principle Number One: "A man cannot sexually abuse his own child."
This is often met with shock or even ridicule from experienced social workers who have had too many cases of children sexually abused by their own parents. I ask them to hang in there, and give me time to prove it.

This goes to the Free Editing Process.

For a man to sexually abuse his own daughter, he must go through a process in his mind of which he "changes" her into something that is not his own daughter.

Abusive parents will struggle, in specific context, with this very thing.

The training of social workers and law enforcement trained to interview children is intense. It is not for the nominal. It is challenging, but life changing work. Principle Number Two: "Language does not change on its own."
"The officer pulled his gun and fired his weapon twice. He reholstered his gun and called for back up. "

Language does not change on its own. There must be a change in reality to express what took place in language, in less than a micro second. The "gun" turned into a "weapon" when it was in use, but when it was no longer in use, it changed from a "weapon" back into a "gun."

This sentence is very likely to be truth, therefore, as change of language, when justified, statistically is very likely to be true.

In the following statement, childhood sexual abuse is alleged. The man who answered the door to the social worker and police officer (joint interview) began to speak, and the two professionals were wise enough to not interrupt the free editing process because this is where truth is discerned.

"This is a load of crap. You people should be
disgusted with yourselves. Do you think that I am disgusted? This is a
bunch of lies and you people know it.

What I did is this. I got home from a friend's at 10AM and
my wife and my daughter were home. She was ticked that I was out early because
she

wanted to go shopping. She left. I was busy and the girl had homework anyway.

The next thing I know she gets home from shopping, wants
me

to carry in the groceries and my daughter is crying like there's

something wrong. you get called. Cops get called and
here

I am with this crap."

You now likely have an idea of the two words of which a professional must never use in the presence of a parent or parents, accused of child abuse.

"Son" and "Daughter"

Please look at the statement again. It not only is an admission of sexual abuse, but it reveals much more information, including the time of the abuse and the dynamics of the household:

"This is a load of crap. You people should be
disgusted with yourselves. Do you think that I am disgusted? This is a
bunch of lies and you people know it.

What I did is this. I got home from a friend's at 10AM and
my wife and my daughter were home. She was ticked that I was out early because
she

wanted to go shopping. She left. I was busy and the girl had homework anyway.

The next thing I know she gets home from shopping, wants
me

to carry in the groceries and my daughter is crying like there's

something wrong. you get called. Cops get called and
here

I am with this crap."

Without going into detail in the analysis, (it is very lengthy), a question is this:

Question: What caused his "daughter" to change into "the girl", and then back into "daughter", again?

Answer: The presence of the mother.

In order to sexually molest his daughter, the offender had to "change" his daughter into the gender specific "girl", which is when he molested her. What caused this to happen?

The mother's departure.

Did you notice that when the mother was in the home, her presence impacted the father's language, as he called her not only "daughter" but "my daughter."

When the mother was gone, the daughter was no longer "safe" as she "changed" into "the girl", with no possessive pronoun. The offender objectified her after robbing her of the status of his daughter. When the mother returned, so returned the status of "daughter" and safety.

The mother "knew" of his "little problem", but feared disclosure because of financial constraint. She had told her husband that he was to stay away from another local pedophile (they find each other for 'strength' in their perversity), which is why "a friend" is used, and not "my friend."

The mother was stressed. She had to go food shopping and the couch-surfing lout (note the grocery issue) assured her to "just go" and "not worry" and the victim, who desperately loved her father, thought he would leave her alone since most of the "play time" (his words for her years earlier) was at night when she was drowsy and with less defense. He did not molest his "daughter" but he molested "the girl", in his mind. Each of us has a personal, subjective, internal dictionary. One child played "monopoly" with Mommy's boyfriend. Noting she was too young to play the board game, I asked her to show me the game. I immediately had to stop her.

Child Protective Professionals must avoid using the words "son" and "daughter", instead noting very carefully the context in which these words are used, and more importantly, the context in which they disappear.

I have found, through interviewing hundreds of families, that when the "son" or "daughter" is ejected from the language of the offending parent, to be the time of the abuse.

Shortly after, however, when there is remorse (which may stem from being caught, or may be genuine self-loathing) not only does "daughter" reappear with the pronoun "my", but it now comes with terms of endearment as well.

The child who is sexually abused will suffer. This suffering may be:

a. Lifetime

and it may include a host of problems, especially triggered in adolescence:

b. substance abuse

c. depressed immune system (open to all manner of illness throughout life)

c. de-personalization

d. boundary issues

e. suicide and suicidal ideation

f. depression

g. anxiety

h. difficulties in relationships

i. promiscuity

j. frigidity later in adulthood

k. hyper vigilance including PTSD, PTSD like symptoms, over protective parenting (leading to later bullying of the child), failure to protect, failure to recognize abuse, denial, minimization, etc.

l. self-sabotaging of success, happiness and health, in all aspects of life

m. oppressive need for control, rules, laws, etc.

n. Unexplained health issues

o. Speech and communication issues (especially if the sexual abuse was pre-speech)

A question to consider:

When an infant is sexually abused where the touch did not cause any pain (but may have been 'pleasurable' or 'gentle' touch), the results may be exactly what has been described above. Why is this the possible result?

If you use the word "daughter" in your interview process, the parent can now, without internal stress, parrot your word back to you, taking the parent out of the free editing process and into a place of comfort. The comfort is not with his own words, but a comfort with your words. Liars often avoid the stress of disrupting the micro speed of the free editing process by entering into, or just parroting the Interviewer's own words.

"Did you molest your daughter?"

"I did not molest my daughter" is not reliable. It is to parrot the words of another AND...

it does not define what "molest" means.

I had a child molester pass a polygraph while asked this question. Had the polygraher used his own words ("tickle"), he would have failed.

Cleared, he reoffended.

This is a small aspect of the training for Social Workers, and the full analysis of this short statement reveals a great deal of information that was used in the interview process, which resulted in the man leaving the home, and support gained for the mother and child, including professional intervention and financial support.

For training opportunities, including seminars and home courses, visit Hyatt Analysis.

Discounts for hosting DHHS offices and police departments.

You must avoid "son" and "daughter" and only allow the parent to use these terms, and then be on alert for its use.

You will hear it, very likely, in non-abusive contexts.

If it disappears and the child is referred to as something else, you must be on alert to know what context caused this change.

*Objection:

I was taught to not keep using the same word repeatedly, as it is tedious. This is why I change language.

Answer: In the free editing process, the brain is moving very quickly, so I ask you to try this experiment to see just how accurate this really is:

The next time you hear a change of language, I dare you; no, I double-dog-dare you, to ask the person what caused it.

You are very likely to hear this answer:

"I didn't change my language."

When you point out specifically, that they did, you will likely hear this:

"I didn't even realize I changed my language!"

It goes by too quickly.

Remember my tale of the pretty co-worker from years ago?

She told a new worker, "See if Peter can go with you on the interview. He's a good man to have with you."

I overheard it and smiled.

Months later, and yet another new worker (child abuse workers have a high rate of burn out) she said to the new worker, "Take Peter with you. He's a good person to have with you when you're doing interviews. "

I could not resist.

I asked her, "Did you used to have a crush on me?"

She turned red and answered my question with a question: "Why do you ask that?" which was followed by, "Well, I used to, but that was months ago. How'd you know?"

I pointed out that months ago she called me a "man" but now, she changed me into a "person." A "person" is gender neutral, while "man" is specifically man.

(NOTE: that's what it used to mean 10 years ago).

I asked, "What caused the change?"

"Oh, I met your wife, Heather! She's really nice."

By avoiding introducing language, whenever possible, you will get to the truth of what happened and then can assess the safety level, risk, and what intervention may be necessary to facilitate the safety and well being of the child.

This is part of a much larger training for professionals who conduct child interviews. The process of transmission changing 25,000 or more words, down to 15 or so, with precision, is so fast that deception disrupts this speed, causing internal stress upon the subject. The internal stress, here, is not a conscience, or a lack thereof, but a scientific stress: this wildly fast process has a disruption to it because the words are not coming from memory (experiential memory), which is the reason why the person feels stress. Even sociopaths feel this stress,and it is how we discern deception. The training is intense, and a level of professionally often comes from two years of intense study and practice. This is where the "dulled listening" is turned off, once and for all, and the "analytical listening", especially for those who began study as intuitively sharp, takes over. You will never read a book or article the same way again. You will never listen to people the same way, ever again. I have found that those who dedicate two straight years to practice and training, once been formally trained, reach this wonderful threshold, and now use their skill to advance their careers, in whatever field they are in, from investigations, to social services, to Human Resources, to sales and so on. Medical professionals, litigators, in short, anyone who deals in communication will benefit from training.